Britt's On

Whoops. I've definitely been absentee for some time. That's not to say I haven't been a media fiend over the last few months. Quite the opposite. And therefore busy. Anyway here are my top 10 thoughts on media happenings since I last wrote in...gulp...October.

10) Homeland and American Horror Story provided two of the most enjoyable viewing experiences I've had on television in recent memory. If only every year brought such gems to my screen. Oh and I'm still digging Revenge. SO glad I picked that one up.

9) I feel like I've lost a lot of steam for this year's Oscars race. It's probably because I saw all of the movies (except War Horse...I just can't...) as of a few weeks ago, so its been a little anti-climactic since then. I don't feel passionately about any particular film. Midnight in Paris was definitely my favourite, but I know it doesn't have a shot for much beyond best screenplay.

8) Survivor was dissatisfying. The conclusion anyway. I have this weird issue where I secretly root for people like Natalie (Samoa) and Sophie (this last season) but not really expect them to win and then when they're in a position to I regret cheering for them. Coach deserved the win in my opinion. I loved this season altogether, it definitely had some good characters and 'moments', although I'm still not a fan of Redemption and a little tired of back-to-back 'bring 'em back' seasons. I'm glad they're going in a fresh direction this season.

7) I watched both the Golden Globes and the Grammys. Not much to say on either. I thought Emma Stone was best dressed at the GG's and I'm excited she'll (likely) be at the Oscars this year. Adele is a precious flower and like the rest of the world, I'm so happy for her success.

6) New Girl continues to be my new favourite comedy. I still love Modern Family and guffaw on occasion at The Office, but I'm so intrigued by where this show is going...and can go. It just feels like a really fresh take on the 90s 'Friends'-type comedy, although I know other people are toting 'Happy Endings' in that respect.

5) I've read a sh*t ton of books in the last few months, that should come as no surprise. I meant to do some dreamcasting on here. Let's see if I can remember...I found 'The Night Circus' incredibly difficult to cast but I know it's going to be a sensational movie. I think I had someone like Olivia Wilde in there for Celia. I just read 'Before I Go To Sleep' and I thought of Kate Winslet for Christine and Jude Law for Ben.

4) On Whitney Houston: serious tragedy. She clearly needed help for a long time and it's a shame no one was able to give it to her. Between her and Amy Winehouse I hope someone somewhere finds a way to connect with these people. I can only imagine Lindsay Lohan's name showing up next...

3) The Walking Dead. Disappointing season so far, not much improved by this week's mid-season premiere. They need to GTFO the GD farm. Also the scriptwriting still feels awkwardly clunky and expositional.

2) I watched both the Swedish and American versions of 'Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' in the last few months. The BF was not interested in the American version at all because he felt like he'd seen it all with the serviceable Swedish adaptation. But I have to say, I thought the American version kicked ass. Rooney Mara was superlative, and in my humble opinion, deserving of an Oscar. Perhaps if they make - and sustain the quality level - of all three she'll get rewarded down the road.

1) I'm feeling Project Runway All Stars for the most part. I'll admit there is something problematic with the fact we are seeing style point-of-views that we're already well familiar with, as opposed to seeing what a new crop of designers would have brought to the table. But at the same time it's refreshing to see such ambition, talent, and commitment to said points of view.

0) Oh yes, a bonus post. I'm quite enjoying the new Canadian show The LA Complex. It's from the creators of Degrassi so this should come as no surprise, but I'm finding it surprisingly well-plotted, acted, and paced. I'm so psyched for the actors (particularly Cassie Steele) that its received a US pickup for the summer.

I PROMISE to write back after the Oscars. That is all.

- Britt's On

I'm a writer by trade. I make a living from it, I think I have four or five blogs including this one, and I've always got some writing project on the go that may perhaps provide a new source of income in the future.

I'm also a Grooveshark addict, constantly making new playlists for various moods and activities. For awhile, I created a playlist I called 'Writing Friendly', because it wasn't chockful of top 40 dance-readyhits (which belong on the 'Shimmy' playlist). In time, that has basically evolved to be songs of the indie rock / alternative / folk persuasion that I tend to favour. It's easily the most generic of my playlists, but it does tend towards a more mellow vibe that I CAN use to write with.

However, more often than not, when I want to buckle down and focus, I actually listen to movie / television scores. The reason is multi-fold. For one, there are no words to focus on and mock or smile at. For another, there is a certain 'creativity' to movie scores that I don't find with classical music - I see what the composer was trying to do in terms of evoking a mood for a film. It's quite powerful without being distracting.

And I'm not bashing classical - I've had many years of playing the piano and the flute (no AP jokes please), and I'm a classically trained singer. Unfortunately, all of that works against me when listening to classical music to focus: I get VERY distracted by picturing how I might figure out the notes to play a song on the piano, and I'm incredibly familiar with say, the top 100 most famous classical tunes. Unfortunately most of the songs I'm most familiar with are songs I've *played* at some point, so I tend to just stop and want to close my eyes and listen. I also realize I sound like a huge tool at this point, so let's move on.

If you haven't listened to scores before, I suggest you give it a whirl on your Grooveshark, Pandora, iTunes, whatever account. Think of a movie or tv show that has a memorable score - stuff like CSI or rom coms with indie rock soundtracks aren't right here. You want things that let orchestral music do the work.

Generally speaking, I gravitate towards pretty orchestral stuff: lots of strings and piano. I almost never listen to the dramatic 'battle scene' type music, but I love the quieter tunes. I generally don't listen to a whole lot of ethnic-influenced scores. They're a little polarizing and distracting, although not as much as big dramatic scores can be.

The more you listen to scores, the more you'll get to know a composer's style. Thomas Newman, my fave score composer and the Susan Lucci of the Best Original Score award at the Oscars, does gorgeous string arrangements punctuated with interesting percussion instruments. If you listen to John Williams 'Home Alone' and 'Harry Potter' scores, you'll hear a similar sense of whimsy and traditional orchestral arrangements. Michael Giacchino's scores are bold, and often use brass instruments to dramatic effect.

Here are a few places for you to start. I do recommend to listening to as much score music as you can get your hands on, then figuring out from there what you love / don't love.

I've been meaning to write this post forever, because I love music as much as books, computer games, movies, and TV. And I love those things a LOT. Anyway. My boyfriend's work gives you free gym memberships, however we missed last year's cut-off for the year, so we didn't get them until this year...I think we got them *right* at the end of June. This gave me the opportunity to create a workout mix, load up ye ol' iPod Shuffle (because who cares what happens to a six-year-old Shuffle at this point), and sweat to the newbies, and the oldies.

Whilst drafting my mix, I did a bit of searching for ideas to populate my mix with, beyond the 439 songs I currently have on it. There were a lot of classic suggestions - Eye of the Tiger anyone? - but I have to say, I'm pretty happy with my mix.

So I'm going to add my two cents. If you're looking for workout music suggestions, look no further. For now anyway - I've got a lot of great ideas, so this is just volume 1!

My general criteria for good workout music:
- It's got a consistently upbeat tempo (i.e. you're not twiddling your thumbs through a 45-second intro or outro)

- It's distracting enough that you can sometimes forget about the fact the song is 4:38 seconds, and thus you count every. single. second. as you run

- I also love songs that surprise me with some sort of upbeat messaging - not quite as literal as 'I've Got The Powah!' but the chorus of songs like Katy Perry's "Firework", Britney Spears' "(Drop Dead) Beautiful" and Jamiroquai's "Use The Force" are all great examples.

- Of course, you've got to like the artist. If you can't stand Britney as a vocalist - ignoring the fact you might not respect her as a musician - then skip my song suggestions there.

Are you surprised? I think Entertainment Weekly reviewed her last album with the words "plenty of great tunes for the treadmill" included in there. Her last three albums in particular are goldmines for upbeat, supercharged songs. Here's a quick list of my top ten Britney workout tunes, in no particular order other than my iTunes organizing stuff by album title.
10. Break The Ice (Blackout) - bit of a slower intro, but I adore this song. I dare you not to swivel your hips on the elliptical.
9. Toy Soldier (Blackout) - consistently upbeat. Army theme works well for working out.
8. Womanizer (Circus) - awesome tempo and beat. Fun to sing along to in your head as well.
7. Till The World Ends (Femme Fatale) - electric and pretty much demands a high-level of energy, particularly once the beat kicks into overdrive a minute in.
6. Hold It Against Me (Femme Fatale) - probably one of the fastest songs she's ever done, although weirdly the chorus is a little slower. Still a great one for working out.
5. (Drop Dead) Beautiful (Femme Fatale) - I love when this song comes on. It's all about 'looks' and body image, so you'll definitely feel motivated to give it when the chorus hits.
4. Toxic (In the Zone) - I mean, obviously. String quartet on acid.
3. Me Against The Music Justice Remix (B In the Mix) - For the record, the original is also good, as is the 'In The Zone' Reshi Rich remix.
2. Crazy (Baby One More Time) - you want the 'Stop' Remix here, clearly. Lots of Britney's early stuff is a touch too slow to qualify as good workout tunes, but Crazy is a classic.
1. Selfish or Up 'n' Down (Femme Fatale bonus tracks) - Torn between these two.

Honestly, I have about 25 Brit songs on my overall workout mix. Her stuff is super upbeat and energized, you really can't go wrong.

I'm just going to say it. I don't like Lady Gaga's new album Born This Way. I've been listening to it all day and I'm sadly disappointed.

The writing was on the wall I suppose. Like the rest of the world, I found the lead single and title track a Madonna rip-off circa 'Express Yourself'. And when I stumbled across 'Judas' a few weeks ago, I felt like it was a weaker, weirder version of 'Bad Romance'.

I've always maintained that I like Gaga the musician, not Gaga the exhibitionist - and these days she definitely seems to be skewing towards the latter. I'm just kind of over her glazed-over "You like me?" persona. Gaga is trying so hard to represent all of us, all the so-called freaks in the world, that I've completely lost who she is - a talented, interesting musician.

Aside from my issues with the enterprise that is Lady Gaga, let's talk about what we're supposed to talk about when we talk about a musician - THE MUSIC. Unfortunately, it's all a little forgettable...and melding together. The songs have a consistent thrumming, Euro-Dance feeling to them that doesn't feel fresh or cutting edge, but rather reminiscent of Britney Spears' latest effort Femme Fatale minus the desire to throw elbows at the club.

It's also the lyrics...almost every song refers to Gaga's past insecurity and accepting yourself and inner beauty. Or alternatively, oddly, religion - including the quite blatant call-outs to 'Capital H-I-M' in 'Born This Way' and the title of 'Judas'. Also there's tons of love for Gaga's gay icon status - many of the songs give shoutouts to sexuality and romance. Do I support the message? Absolutely. Does it feel a little pandering? Definitely.

To Gaga's credit, she sells this sh*t for all she can. It's a bold artist that can convince the world to embrace an album that is equal parts derivative and oddly show tune-y. I just don't feel like it has that spark of...being genuine. Or for that matter, unique - every single from her first album (actually every track) had a slightly different vibe, and that's what made it so awesome. I can't say the same is true here.

I'm sure the world will embrace it, although the love for her first two singles has been more tepid than I think anyone anticipated. I don't want to see her have a ton of backlash, but I really did expect more from the Lady herself. I just feel like she's succumbed to her own image.

- Britt's On

Lately I've been working on a self-imposed project regarding the radio industry, part of which has involved some judicious analysis of the Canadian Content standards imposed by the government run CRTC (radio & television commission). For those of you that aren't aware, the CRTC requires a certain level of programming be Canadian on a daily basis. So if you're wondering why your favourite pop station plays excessive amounts of Hedley or Drake, CanCon is the reason.

Back when CanCon was first introduced, it was admittedly kind of a joke. You only needed to have 25% of your weekly playlist be Canadian music, and it could air at anytime. By the time the 90s rolled around, this number was bumped up to 35% - both on a weekly basis, and during peak hours from 6 AM to 6 PM. Given that the average hour of programming has 10 to 14 songs, this averages out to about 4-6 songs per hour needing to be part of the MAPL system. That is, Canadians had their hands in at least of two of the following: the music composition, the vocal performance (artist), the production, and the lyric-writing.

On one hand, the fact this system really strengthened itself at the same time as the Canadian music scene went stratospheric points to the fact that CanCon 'works' to develop new artists, which at the end of the day is what it's all about - providing a platform for Canadian musicians to celebrate their individuality and actually work as a musician (no matter what element of the MAPL system they're involved in) for a living.

On the flip side, 35% is awfully high, and doesn't really do tons for Canadian artists. Basically if you're lucky enough to have a breakout single (or a one hit wonder) you'll get airplay - and plenty of it - creating a false sense of popularity and credibility. I remember being a youngster in the 90s and thinking "I can't stand The Tea Party and Moist but they must be HUGE given how often MuchMusic plays their tunes!" If CanCon didn't exist, I doubt a good chunk of the musicians the proliferated in the 90s would have been as big as they are - but is that a good thing or a bad thing if a decent number of them only produced mediocre work at best?

The other problem with the 35% rule is if the goal is to develop new Canadian talent, the sheer lack of new Canadian talent again makes this a bit of a throwaway rule, and has actually made popular music even more disposable than the name 'throwaway pop' implies. More often than not, you'll hear a slightly dated Avril Lavigne or Nelly Furtado tune on a popular music station in order to make their CanCon targets. This works out well for the stations because neither artist is obscure enough to prompt a switcheroo (wherein you go channel surfing), but in terms of developing new Canadian talent? Well, it's not. Instead what you've got is very skewed radio station formats that don't want to risk overplaying Drake's latest single too many times - they essentially have twenty to forty 'must play' songs during the peak hours, 95% of which probably don't include any Canadian music whatsoever. They then pepper each hour with various Canadian tunes that are either current (and where hot Canadian artists are a godsend) or a tiny bit out of date, such as singles from their previous albums.

My overall thought is I like the idea of Canadian Content, on paper. Just like communism sounds good on paper. Artists like Hedley would probably be nowhere with it, so that's kind of nifty. On the other hand, I think it's seriously messing with the airwaves and allowing for more diversity on what we hear when we tune in for some free music listening. There's plenty of up and coming acts from other parts of the world that would love the exposure, but weirdly Canadian radio only responds (at the moment) if a song BLOWS UP and is thus worthy of their very limited 'hit list'. It makes us behind the times in the latest trends and artists, unfortunately, which in turn has many folks switching off their radios altogether in favour of their personally crafted iTunes mix.

My suggestion on how to fix the CanCon issue? I think I'd reduce the total requirement for CanCon a bit during peak hours - down to 30%, but keep the 35% for the overall week. I'd also make a requirement that on hit music stations, 10% of the tuneage should be released in the last two years, or perhaps 5% in the last year, to make music directors a little more creative in mining new Canadian talent. I'm sure that overcomplicates things which is why they make it a flat 'rate' of 35%, but I guarantee if you sat down and looked at a chart station's playlist or even just flipped on the radio when tackling a major house project for the day, you would easily recognize the issues I'm talking about.

- Britt's On

I am a fan of old school 1960s teen dream Disney. I wanted to be Hayley Mills when I was a kid, and Pollyanna and The Parent Trap ranked as two of my most-watched movies as a kid, along with the uber-bizarre Babes in Toyland starring Annette Funicello.

For awhile it seemed the Disney factory stopped producing ready-made stars, the closest thing being the explosion of teenagers in the late 90s that had all once, coincidentally, been on the Mickey Mouse Club together. You’ve heard the names before, but Britney, Christina, Justin, Keri Russell, and Ryan Gosling are just some of the famous alums.



These days though, it seems like the gears are greased and the factory is working at maximum capacity to churn out an endless spew of young starlets – starting back about a decade ago with Lindsay Lohan (who got her start in Disney’s remake of ‘The Parent Trap’) and Hilary Duff (who defined the Disney preteen genre with her starring role on ‘Lizzie Mcguire’).


Both stars burned out relatively quickly. Lohan seemed poised to go far beyond her Disney days with the hugely successful ‘Mean Girls’ and a handful of other half-decent movie roles in youth-friendly films like ‘Freaky Friday’ and ‘Herbie: Fully Loaded’. The tides quickly turned however, as Lindsay got caught up in the Hollywood lifestyle…and well, you know the rest. Girl got sentenced to spend some time in prison this week! Duff managed to avoid the majority of the party girl controversy, but earned headlines for her clandestine relationship with Good Charlotte frontman Joel Madden (papa to two kids & husband-to-be of Nicole Richie) when she was a minor, and a relatively flat music career. Duff appeared on ‘Gossip Girl’ for a stint this fall, but other than that her ship seems to have sailed. Don’t worry about Hil though, she’s engaged to a Canadian NHL hockey player. Cha-ching!

I remember my friend Danielle complaining that all of these starlets were unfairly blessed with good lucks, decent acting skills, and mysteriously, singing voices. I’ve heard stories about how terrible most of these kids actually are at singing and that Disney processes their voices as much as their hair, but it’s important to note that all Disney darlings (and their counterparts on The N! and ABC Family) tend to have vocal abilities.

Since the Lindsay/Hilary reign of the early 2000s, we’ve been treated to an endless litany of superstars – some which rise to greater heights than others. Call it our short-term attention span or what, but all of a sudden the 15 minutes for these kids seems to be shortened to 5 or 10 minutes.


Consider the Jonas Brothers. Last year (and for a couple of quieter but still buzz-filled years before that), the Jo Bros were THE hottest ticket in town. They churned out a few albums, went on sold out tours, and braced themselves for the inevitable Hanson-esque backlash. And yet they remained relatively untouched. Other than a few jabs at their purity rings, the only logical explanation for the decline in popularity of the band is the fact one of them got married and another one dated Taylor Swift (and everyone in Hollywood) and got revealed as a Mini-Mayer, both of which are good reasons to give parents pause when it comes to their OCD daughters falling over themselves for this group.


In one short year, the Jonas Brothers have been dethroned by a fifteen-year-old Canadian moppet named Justin Beiber. The same hysteria surrounding Bieber is exactly what defined the Jonas Brothers – screaming, hysterical girls of a certain age, sold out tours, and limited proven ability at a very young age. The only question is whether Beiber will be able to translate his current success into longevity – a harder move than one might think, as Justin Timberlake can attest (as the sole survivor of the boy band era).


Take another example: High School Musical. The franchise spawned two television movies and a big screen outing in just three short years and took over the dreams of tweens everywhere (and a few eagle-eyed teens and young adults that spied one Zac Efron). It also opened the door for more adult-oriented shows like “Glee” to make their move. Despite skyrocketing the young stars into the public eye, it has proven relatively fruitless for the gang so far. Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron, the most predictably successful of the bunch, have continued on quietly with starring roles in B-grade movies (save for Zac’s ’17 Again’, which I enjoy), Ashley Tisdale got a nose job and continued doing voice work and kiddie shows, and the rest of the cast basically fell off the deep end – along with their price-slashed merchandise. I have no doubt Hanna Montana, now that it’s off the air and Miley Cyrus is branching out in a Britney sense, will suffer the same fate.

My point is, there is a disturbing trend at work here. It seems like every week there is a new mini-star on the rise. I could name them, but I couldn’t tell you what they’ve done, what show they’re on, or how their music career is going. Demi Lovato. Selena Gomez. Jamie Lynn Spears (teenage mama). Miranda Cosgrove. Anna Sophia Robb. I’d like to meet the parents that think it’s okay to encourage their young ones to be thrown into an overgroomed, overworked spotlight like this when the results are debatable at best.

It’s nothing new – kid stars in the 30s and the 60s (the last big booms) were famously overworked and overexposed as well – but it’s disconcerting to think that one day I’ll be a parent shelling out for flavour of the month branded backpacks and binders, at the expense of a young person that doesn’t know what they’re in for, to the benefit of a company that knows how to manipulate and mastermind frighteningly successful branded people.

It’s just a hard thing to swallow.

- Britt’s On

I’ve been listening to Timbaland’s ‘Shock Value II’ lately, subtitle: “Anyone Can Be A Star With Autotune!”, and I have to say, I’m impressed. Along with the Black Eyed Peas will.i.am, few producers out there can consistently churn out such annoyingly innovative, diverse, and catchy insta-hits.

While Timba’s vocal talent is questionable at best, his choice of guest stars is inspired and diverse – from pop starlets Miley Cyrus and Jojo to unexpected collaborations with Chad Kroeger and Drake to familiar faces like Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake, the album manages to subvert the negativity that can come with banking on your guest star prowess to make a good album.

In actuality, Timbaland has a nice symbiotic system set up. If you work with him, you’re pretty much guaranteed a top 20 hit. In fact, looking at singles released from SVII, Carry Out (Justin Timberlake), If We Ever Meet Again (Katy Perry), Marchin On (One Republic), Morning After Dark (Nelly Furtado and SoShy) all reached the top 10, while his collaborations with Miley Cyrus hit 63 (and was only on the chart for one week) and Drake hit at 23. Plus, if you’re someone who is taking time off from the gruelling rigors of touring and promotion, it’s a simple way to keep your name and mug on the charts. Timba in turn gets street cred by proxy, actual vocal talent, and establishes relationships with stars who might hire him down the line. Genius.

This brings me to the rise of the EP. Several up and coming stars, and I mean really up and coming, have commented that the EP is the way to go. Consider the pros of this model. It allows you to produce new material more often to satiate your fans, and continually boosts album sales – you can charge more than half the cost of a CD for a 4-5 song disc. It reduces the use of ‘filler’ to round out an album, earning you higher reviews. It allows you to experiment with a new style of music or sound. It reduces the pressure and strains of having to release a new album and reinvent yourself entirely (see: Christina Aguilera). It plays better with the iTunes generation because the constantly refreshed content is a u-pick operation. If your EP spawns a huge hit, even if the other tunes aren’t smashing successes, people will be less likely to call it a ‘one-single’ album (see: Smashmouth and Sugar Ray), and more likely to shell out the extra few bucks to see what else you’ve been spinning in the studio. It gives you an opportunity to promote singles instead of entire albums, which is way less work. It gives you new material to integrate into an existing tour concept. It tides your fans over till you’re ready to do a full-length album (see: Death Cab for Cutie). It gives record companies the chance to test an uncertain star (see: Drake). It can still propel mini-tours – hitting the big cities or cities tied to a certain theme (ex: if you’re doing blues, hit some of the more industrial, earthy cities, or only go to festivals) by allowing you to integrate some new material with the classics people will most desperately want to see.

I could go on. Of course there are pros – marketing and otherwise – to sticking to full-length albums. It’s a lot easier to package an image, a brand, and an artist together when it’s hinged on a large album concept – you can have the Christina Aguilera ‘Stripped’ tour, merchandise, and general feeling from that era of her career. Britney Spears’ latest effort, ‘Circus’, makes a similar case for the packaging of a brand by album, not single – although Britney refreshed her tour halfway through with the release of her greatest hits and the #1 single ‘3’. Also Britney is one of the exceptions to the rule – the industry is so interested in working with her she’s able to more quickly roll out music than more artists, although the idea of her doing an EP is of interest.

That being said, I see the rise of the EP becoming a continual trend in the industry. I’m not the first person to say it and I won’t be the last, but it just makes sense for the music biz to embrace this change.

Circling back to Timbaland…his album works as singles, that are reminiscent of how EP’s work. If he were smart, he’d consider doing EP’s exclusively with one or two artists he’s really interested in developing – whether it’s ‘Timbaland Presents…’ or just taking the production credits to the nth degree, as he does. Or he would consider putting on his own two-day music festival featuring the artists he most frequently collaborates with, the ones he’d like people to learn more about, including him hopping on stage to join them, or headlining his own show during the festival and have all the guests there at once. It’d be massive.

My point about Timbaland, especially in terms of his lack of vocal talent, is that he is a music brand, and that works *well* in making EP’s successful. Dude should take advantage.

Just sayin!

- Britt’s On

I wasn’t looking forward to last night’s Grammy awards. I’m not a fan of awards shows that stack musical interludes and honorary awards in front of actually giving away awards – and the Grammy’s are notorious for that, putting together extremely obscure pairings for what they call ‘once in a lifetime’ and I call ‘stupid’. However, I obliged the boyfriend last night and watched the entire thing from start to finish. I will point out that when we caught up with our PVR, I made him watch a TLC program on the world’s tiniest girl (about the size of a cat if you can imagine, and she’s two). We managed to watch that whole program between catching up with the Grammy’s and were still done watching them at about 10:35.

Anyway to my surprise, last night was a good show. I thought I’d maybe touch on several of the performances – ones that I feel qualified to comment on for one reason or another – and give my grades to the winners and losers of the night.

Lady Gaga – kicked things off with a bang as per usual, but also as per usual? Gaga was at her best when vamping on the piano with Elton John, stripped away from the hysterics of her OTT dance-y number, complete with Gaga mannequins and flashy MC. I’m a little surprised Ga didn’t get to grab an award on stage.
Grade: B+

Pink – easily one of the best performances of the night. Glitter in the Air is one of my fave tracks off Pink’s last album, and she sang it perfectly with some genuine emotion (did you SEE Keith Urban tearing up when he went to present the next award)? Add to that a breathtaking acrobatic performance where she STILL managed to sound awesome and you’ve got a winner. I respect Pink, as she’s really just kept on doing her own thing from when she first showed up on the scene to today, and she’s still popular. She’s not #1, but she’s continually out there.
Grade: A+

Beyonce – tied for best performance with Pink. “If I Was A Boy” has/had the potential to be a really boring power ballad, but Beyonce’s utilitarian interpretation had her rocking the crowds, putting a big smile on her hubby’s face, and showcased her voice without too many intense vocal gymnastics. Add to that the inspired ‘Oughta Know’ interlude (go Canada go) and you’ve got a stellar, unexpectedly awesome performance.
Grade: A+

Michael Jackson Tribute – despite a relatively ragtag band of performers – Celine Dion, Jennifer Hudson, Usher, Carrie Underwood, and Smokey Robinson – they did a really solid job of delivering this tune along with Michael’s angelic vocals. The 3D didn’t quite work (we had on non-Grammy-sanctioned glasses that came with our copy of Coraline), and it mostly resulted in guffaws as the boy and I laughed at the starlets wearing their specs, but it was a nice effort. I felt like Carrie Underwood was kind of the weakest here, surprisingly, but loved her realistic, extension-free hair.
Grade: A-

Black Eyed Peas – Imma Be isn’t my fave song off The E.N.D. but it did lend itself well to the build-up in this futuristic blast of a performance. Plus there is NO WAY to not bop your head and enjoy ‘I Gotta Feeling’ – it would have worked well as a show closer in my opinion, although the ‘good night’ would have been over by then I suppose.
Grade: A

Lil Wayne / Drake / Eminem – Probably the best of the ‘true’ hip hop / R&B performances of the night, although the lyrics were more muddled than the clear cut sound of the actual track. I commented, in regards to Gaga and Drake, those two are living the dream. A couple of years ago they were just doing their thing in a NYC club and ‘wheelchair’ respectively, and now they’re performing with legends in their genres on the Grammy stages. Drake looked a little too happy to be hardcore, but his performance was great – it was good to see Eminem in a positive, supporting role. Perhaps they bonded over their similar struggle against expectations vs. reality (Degrassi Star? Vs. Talented!).
Grade: B+

Taylor Swift (w/Stevie Nicks) – Taylor’s weakness is her live performing, but what she lacks in vocal power she makes up for in charm and energy. The Stevie Nicks middle duet was the most painful part, while the countrified version of ‘You Belong With Me’ was a highlight – imagine, Taylor Swift singing pure country?
Grade: B

Green Day (w/musical guests) – I had no idea Green Day was putting together a musical of ‘American Idiot’ but I am tickled pink at the idea. So is the rest of America I bet, after the brilliant PR move of having cast members from the musical rock out with the band. For the rest of the show, we both commented on how every musical group would be clamouring for their own stage show now. The performance lacked the bells and whistles of others, but it was still solid.
Grade: B+

Bon Jovi – The little three-song condensed set the guys played went on an upward slope, from the weak opening by Richie Sambora through to the fan-selected ‘Livin on a Prayer’. Yet BJ seemed a little, dare I say it, bored? Their energy level wasn’t nearly as high as some of the others last night.
Grade: C+

Maxwell – Apparently this guy is famous down in the US of A. I don’t know him. He had a nice voice but his performance was standard power ballad stuff, which Beyonce managed to overcome…Maxwell did not, and thus I skipped this one.
Grade: C

Jamie Foxx – Another performance I skipped about half of. Foxx’s vocals were buried in auto-tune and there wasn’t really anything special (enter hoochie girls after the operatic debut), unlike the stripped down Eminem/Wayne/Drake performance later that evening.
Grade: C-

Lady Antebellum – The boyfriend is a big fan of these folks, having partied all night with them last time they were in town. There wasn’t anything flashy about their performance, nor did they have any surprise special guests…and it was nice. I’m not super familiar with them, but they are solid performers / songwriters.
Grade: B

There were a few other random performances in there. Zac Brown Band who stole the best new artist award from MGMT – I don’t really have much to say on them. The old person David Foster-helmed soul performance which was pretty snore-y. Dave Matthews band was okay but a little ‘much’. You can do a lot without needing a full jamboree on stage. Jeff Beck and Imelda May started out enchanting but failed to live up to the star power that dominated the stage that night.

Overall though, glad I watched it. Pink and Beyonce were definitely the ladies that rocked the stage, but it was Taylor’s fairy tale and continually surprised gushing that captured our hearts.

- Britt’s On

I realized that I've only posted about television, which isn't the case of what this blog may be at all. I actually listen to a lot of music, read a lot of silly celebrity gossip, watch a lot of movies, and read a ton (a sick amount really) of books. So I'm going to make more of an effort to actually talk about such things, including music.

Yesterday for whatever reason, I started thinking about 90s boy and girl bands, including (oddly) S Club 7, and how people have continually bitched about 'manufactured music'. And then it kind of hit me / made sense. It's sort of impossible...somewhat anyway...for a band that doesn't play instruments to come together naturally.

Think about this realistically: you're a group of singers (perhaps lyricists or songwriters if you're lucky) but not one of you has more than a smattering of musical talent beyond that. You don't have the fundage to hire a backing band (and you won't until you have a legit record contract) - so you either have to shell out big bucks for cheesy backing tracks by someone that doesn't get your vision, or you risk being relegated to the doo-wop barbershop faction.

Thus, the music industry steps in and offers a ripe, juicy recording contract to any individuals - or small connected groups (Brian and Kevin from BSB, Nick and Drew from 98 Degrees - I'm looking at you) - interested in their shot at the big time.

There isn't much difference between putting together a group of 3-5 of these guys or gals, and those same people seeking out solo careers. Well actually, there may be one difference, in that a fair number of future banders have probably spent some time trying to make it on their own - and after the short stint of success their bands have, try to do so afterwards. Manufactured singing groups are very much a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The charisma of four or five can balance things out so that the more lacklustre members still get some lovin' (Howie from BSB, Chris from *NSYNC, Mel C from the Spice Girls...you know what I'm talking about).

Thus, I am in support of the manufactured bands of yesteryear. They never asked to be taken 'seriously', as when is the last time you heard of a singing-only 'rock group'? They were just out there producing feel-good pop for the masses that still holds up for sentimentality and "I'm so lame, but it's okay, you are too" conversations.

I recently realized I know pretty much every verse, chorus, hook, and vocal gymnastic warble on the first two Spice Girls albums, despite not listening to them for half a decade. And you know what? Those girls had a reunion tour for a reason - because on their own, they just aren't as dynamic.

The same can be said about most 'respected' bands out there today - with a few notable exceptions (Pete from Fall Out Boy, Flea from Red Hot Chili Peppers, or Richie Sambora from Bon Jovi for example) how often do you know ANY member of a band other than the lead singer? My aunt regularly hangs out with Coldplay - sans Chris Martin. Slightly less exciting, no?

And thus was the realized power of the all-singing, marginally musical pop group of the 90s: there was something for everyone! Multiple voices! Slightly different archetypal styles and personalities! Signature moves!

Am I saying it's time to go back to this? No, but I am saying that the music industry was onto something, and I'm not ashamed to say it wasn't so bad after all.

- Britt's On